Bill to ban flavored tobacco
- Thread starter SpyvSpy
- Start date
could not launch acrobat
DOH !
there is going to be a move to ban or levy heavy taxes on many things
things which cause bad health
this will all be done in the name of Government healthcare
DOH !
there is going to be a move to ban or levy heavy taxes on many things
things which cause bad health
this will all be done in the name of Government healthcare
The whole bit of regulating tobacco is a crock, IMO. I'm an ex-smoker myself and don't care to be around it. I certainly never believed anyone has the "right" to smoke anywhere they want anymore than I have a "right" not to breathe the fumes.
It is so easy to excuse the intrusion of the Federal government into *tobacco rights*.....after all, it is "bad for you", right? Slowly the interference progressed from a ban on TV ads, warning labels, etc. What now? A case could be made that saturated fats are "bad for you", too....why not regulate them?
It is so easy to excuse the intrusion of the Federal government into *tobacco rights*.....after all, it is "bad for you", right? Slowly the interference progressed from a ban on TV ads, warning labels, etc. What now? A case could be made that saturated fats are "bad for you", too....why not regulate them?
This topic has come up a couple of times since it was first introduced, and it usually ends with a locked thread.
All I can say is that it's BS legislation at work. Hello America, 1984 is here. If you order cigars, snus, RYO or pipe tobacco over the internet or through the mail, you will soon become part of the new "database of tobacco users". That is, if the PACT act doesn't ban all tobacco transactions through the mail before they get this new agency up and running.
All I can say is that it's BS legislation at work. Hello America, 1984 is here. If you order cigars, snus, RYO or pipe tobacco over the internet or through the mail, you will soon become part of the new "database of tobacco users". That is, if the PACT act doesn't ban all tobacco transactions through the mail before they get this new agency up and running.
When smoking was banned from indoor establishments in Ontario (restaurants, bars, pubs) there was an outcry from the entertainment community that they would go bankrupt. Instead, most saw an increase in customers and no negative financial impact, in some cases it actually improved.
Here in Ontario trans fats were banned from schools. Corporations that owned in-school locations (IE: McDonalds) made the switch to healthier alternatives and are still making obscene profits. A recent survey of high school students on the local news revealed that little-to-none even knew there had been a switch, and nobody cared. Ah, the leaders of tomorrow. Heh
Ontario also banned junk food (for sale, IE: vending machines) from elementary schools.
Banned: Pop, fruit drinks, sports drinks, chips, candy bars, cookies, chocolate covered granola bars
Allowed: 100 per cent fruit juice, milk, pretzels, popcorn, muffins (with less than 2 grams of saturated fat), crackers, granola.
Canada is also facing an obesity crisis, especially in our youth. Hopefully by starting kids off on the right foot they will continue along that path later in life. I can’t say I disagree with the logic. I also appreciate the schools putting their money where their mouths are. How hypocritical was it of them to lecture about good nutrition and the value of a healthy diet while making money from vending machines populating the hallways with candy & pop. What type of message did that send? "Do as I say, not as I do"?
As it is it’s been years since I ate fast-food as anything other than an extremely rare occurrence, and I rarely even eat out. I’m not a health-Nazi or anything, I just enjoy knowing exactly what goes into my food.
Last edited:
Banned: Tobacco
Allowed: Nicotine gum? the patch?
Allowed: Nicotine gum? the patch?
Wasn't alcohol banned during the Depression. Notice that when the economy goes down, anything considered a luxury, or something we don't need, gets taxed heavily.
Anyways, the threat is about Flavored Tobacco. I am guessing it will affect the sales of flavored hookah tobacco? I certainly hope not. I enjoy a good hookah after a meal.
Anyways, the threat is about Flavored Tobacco. I am guessing it will affect the sales of flavored hookah tobacco? I certainly hope not. I enjoy a good hookah after a meal.
They should ban flavored coffee...now that is an offense to an enlightened society!
Not quite. Prohibition took effect in 1920. The 18th amendment was repealed in December of 1933, in the early years of the Great Depression.
Nice try.
- Chris
Another power grab. One the one hand the govt wants to regulate another product that grows naturally in the country. I was thinking of hemp. But they sure like the taxes that it brings in. I would guess that the govt; state, local, and federal makes more on tobacco than the tobacco companies do. Same stories as with those evil gasoline companies.
The govt is also attempting to put all medical lab tests under the FDA. Many are currently covered by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment ( CLIA).
The govt is also attempting to put all medical lab tests under the FDA. Many are currently covered by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment ( CLIA).
Hemp is an unfortunate casualty of the marijuana ban. Too bad because hemp is quite a versatile product.
We don't need these asinine bans to protect us from ourselves. We need people to stop looking for someone to blame and to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. These bills don't do anything except make people feel better about being completely useless morons who look to blame everyone else for their own problems.
Does this mean I will no longer be able to smoke my grape Swisher Sweets Little Cigars and cherry Swisher Sweets Little Cigars?
Right. Just one of FDR's accomplishments.
But back to the topic: Politicians and tobacco were made for each other. They can jump on the anti-tobacco bandwagon, which gets a lot of votes from all sides of the political divides, without doing anything about the recession, foreign relations, local taxes, or a state's infrastructure. In the meantime, I can't smoke a cigar indoors with a drink when the weather is bad, even if non-smokers are excluded from the joint or have a hundred alternative businesses they can support. And I'm a wild-eyed liberal/radical/commie/pinko/whatever!
It's all up to the FDA. Nothing is explicitly in place as of yet that expressly forbids such flavors, but the FDA has been given the right to ban all flavored tobacco (except menthol, for now anyway) if it is deemed that such flavors attract youngsters to tobacco. Even menthol is on the hit list, and it is being evaluated to see if the makers of mentholated tobacco products target young people or minorities, and if this study proves that it has, goodbye menthol. (The government wants to know why 90% of blacks smoke menthol, and they're not going to be satisfied until they can be assured it wasn't all some conspiracy by the tobacco companies to hook minorities).
That's the problem with this law. It is too vague and it gives the FDA (an agency that shouldn't handle tobacco at all) way too much responsibility and power. With further refinement, I could have been for this law. As it stands, it's just a clusterbuck.
I'm a huge conservative but this is one area where I think the government needs to step in. Everyone has a right to do to their body as they please, but I don't want to have to breathe in the sickening fumes from smoking and I don't want to have to be bored watching the commercials about quitting smoking, that are probably payed for by tax dollars.
Too bad the world doesn't work that way. I want to ban breakdancing and mayonnaise consumption because I don't personally like being around those two things.
And those commercials that you hate to watch? Result of the government "stepping in" and making tobacco companies pay the tab to air those commercials.
As an extension of your argument, since everyone has a right to do what they please with their own body, you have the right to walk your body away from a smoker who offends you. I'm not going to try and pass a law that requires you to do so, though.
I'm of mixed feeling about this. I am an ex-smoker and I hear we are the worst whiners about this but -- here goes:
You have the right to smoke as much as you have the right to spit or take a pee. Just don't spit on the floor or pee in the corner. I don't think there are any specific laws about that but some sort of general, existing, public nuisance law should cover it. I think the same should apply to smoking but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. So perhaps a new law is justified, as much as I hate the idea.
There are probably certain courtesies and personal hygiene things we take for granted today that seemed like "freedoms" in the 1600's. Doesn't make them any more pleasant. When I think about it I am just saddend that the issue even needs t be addressed. I guess we are not completely out of the dark ages. Now, I LIKE to "let it all hang out" sometimes but realize I shouldn't play that game at work, or at a wedding, or in a restaurant, etc..
As I say, mixed emotions.
Old saying: "Home is where you can pee in the stream." Maybe we need a new one: "Home is where you can pollute your own air."
Except where that home is in a multiple-dwelling and you are polluting your air and the air of those around you.
I'm a libertarian and I agree with limited smoking bans and the strategy of slowly weening society off of poisoning itself.
Tobacco is poison, that has no benefit to society. I know that there are plenty of specious arguments that say alcohol, or salt, or fatty foods, or so on and so forth (and notice I kept trans-fats out because I agree with their ban...that is man made poison that makes other poisonous products cheaper for the manufacturer to produce), but each and every other of those products is beneficial to, if not required by, human life.
So, like tossing Joe Camel, which was, in fact, the nefarious device it was made out to be, so is, and so should be, flavored tobacco.
If anyone here can point to a beneficial or requisite use for tobacco, flavored or otherwise, I will change my mind.
All that happens is you reach a certain point and the government screws itself up. In Canada you pay $11 for a pack of cigarettes and as a result, everyone you meet is smoking the cheap one's smuggled off the native reserves where they cost $3 per pack.
I think though that one thing you need to consider is that for most people smoking is an addiction and not a hobby. When they do polls, something like 90% of smokers say they wish they'd never started to begin with.
But making the prices absolutely rediculous just hurts those already in poverty because the lower the income bracket, the higher the proportion who are smokers.
In the end though, a law or ban doesn't stop anyone from doing something if they really want to. All it does is require more enforcement, more regulation, and waste more resources for an overwhelmingly non-existant benefit.
I think though that one thing you need to consider is that for most people smoking is an addiction and not a hobby. When they do polls, something like 90% of smokers say they wish they'd never started to begin with.
But making the prices absolutely rediculous just hurts those already in poverty because the lower the income bracket, the higher the proportion who are smokers.
In the end though, a law or ban doesn't stop anyone from doing something if they really want to. All it does is require more enforcement, more regulation, and waste more resources for an overwhelmingly non-existant benefit.
